IN THE MATTER OF NEFTALI D. (ANONYMOUS), APPELLANT.
85 N.Y.2d 631, 651 N.E.2d 913, 869 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1995).
May 2, 1995
2 No. 84 (1995 NY Int. 098)
Decided May 2, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
George E. Reed, Jr., for Appellant.
Peter A. Carbone, for Respondent presentment agency.
CIPARICK, J.:
The issue presented in this juvenile delinquency proceeding is whether
a certified, but unverified, police report satisfies the
jurisdictional dictates of Family Court Act § 311.2. We conclude that
the petition is legally insufficient, mandating a reversal.
A juvenile delinquency petition was filed against appellant charging
that on February 6, 1993 he committed acts, which if committed by an
adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the second degree
(Penal Law § 120.05(3)), assault in the third degree (Penal Law
120.00(1)) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). The police
report annexed to the petition relates that the juvenile verbally
assaulted two police officers as they were exiting the building in
which they had just responded to a report of a burglary. Although the
officers proceeded past the juvenile, he continued to taunt them,
prompting the officers to order him to cease such behavior. The
juvenile responded by challenging the officers to a fight, flailing
his arms at them. A scuffle ensued, resulting in the juvenile's
arrest. Both officers were treated for injuries sustained while
attempting to subdue the juvenile.
After entering his denials at the initial appearance on February 10,
1993, the juvenile was released into the custody of his mother,
pending a fact-finding hearing. Prior to the hearing but 34 days after
the initial filing of the petition, the juvenile moved to dismiss
alleging that the petition was jurisdictionally defective because it
did not contain any nonhearsay supporting depositions as required by
the Family Court Act and was erroneously dated the previous year,
before the alleged incident even occurred. The relevant supporting
document annexed to the petition was the police report that contained
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF NEFTALI D., APPELLANT.
The issue presented in this juvenile delinquency proceeding is whether a certified, but
We conclude that the petition is legally insufficient,
A juvenile delinquency petition was filed against appellant charging that on February 6, 1993
The police report annexed to the petition relates that the juvenile verbally assaulted two
Prior to the hearing but 34 days after the initial filing of the petition, the juvenile moved
The relevant supporting document annexed to the petition was the police report that contained
The court indicated it looked to CPL 100.30for interpretive assistance in construing Family
Family Court further held that the incorrect date recited on the face of the petition was an
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that the petition was
The Appellate Division noted that at the time the motion to dismiss was made, the
The sufficiency requirements set forth in Family Court Act § 311.2 are not simply technical
Like a criminal information, the juvenile delinquency petition is the sole instrument for the
Family Court Act § 311.2 measures the sufficiency of a petition by the sum of its two parts:
Family Court Act § 303.1contemplates reference to judicial interpretations of relevant
we find Criminal Procedure Law section 100.30instructive with regard to verification of
Here, the certification signature contained in the police report filed in support of the
That this proceeding was about to enter the fact- finding stage at the time appellant moved
The failure to comply with the statutory sufficiency requirements is a nonwaivable
|
